The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that while expert opinions on handwriting are not conclusive, courts must permit reasonable opportunities to challenge the authenticity of critical documents like unregistered wills - especially when prior expert analysis is inconclusive. The judgment reinforces judicial discretion in ensuring substantive justice over procedural finality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction concerning properties listed in the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3) claim absolute ownership of items 3 and 4, and vested remainders of items 1 and 2, based on an unregistered Will dated 07.01.2015, allegedly executed by Pydi Venkata Durga Satya Vara Prasad. The defendants (petitioners 1 to 3 and others) contest the validity of the Will, alleging forgery of the testator’s signature.
Key Facts
- The unregistered Will (Ex.A1) dated 07.01.2015 is the central document in dispute.
- Admitted signatures of the alleged testator are contained in two documents: a Registered Dhakal Deed dated 02.02.2023 (Ex.B.13) and a Registered Partition Deed dated 18.08.2008.
- On 15.06.2024, petitioners filed I.A. No.1236 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, seeking referral of the disputed signature to a handwriting expert.
- The application was allowed, and documents were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Amaravathi.
- On 08.10.2024 and 11.04.2025, the Laboratory returned the documents, stating that the available standard signatures were insufficient to form a definite opinion and requested additional admitted signatures from the relevant time period.
- On 15.06.2025, petitioners filed I.A. No.834 of 2025, seeking referral of the same documents to Truth Labs, a private forensic laboratory.
- On 01.07.2025, the learned VII Additional District Judge dismissed the application, holding that the earlier expert opinion was inconclusive and that re-referral would be futile.
- The petitioners challenged this dismissal via the present Civil Revision Petition.
Procedural History
- 07.01.2015: Execution of the disputed unregistered Will (Ex.A1).
- 02.02.2023: Execution of Registered Dhakal Deed (Ex.B.13) containing admitted signature of the testator.
- 18.08.2008: Execution of Registered Partition Deed (another source of admitted signature).
- 15.06.2024: I.A. No.1236 of 2024 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for expert comparison.
- 08.10.2024: Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Amaravathi, returns documents citing insufficient standards.
- 11.04.2025: Follow-up communication from Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, reiterating need for additional admitted signatures.
- 15.06.2025: I.A. No.834 of 2025 filed seeking referral to Truth Labs.
- 01.07.2025: Trial Court dismisses I.A. No.834 of 2025.
- 07.05.2026: Civil Revision Petition No.2269 of 2025 decided by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners (Defendants 5,7,8): Argue that the Will is forged and that the inconclusive expert opinion necessitates a second opinion from a more advanced forensic facility. They assert their right to a fair opportunity to rebut the Will’s authenticity.
- Respondents (Plaintiffs 1-3): Contend that the prior expert analysis was exhaustive and that re-referral to another expert, especially a private entity, is unnecessary, dilatory, and prejudicial to the finality of litigation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought setting aside of the order dated 01.07.2025 dismissing I.A. No.834 of 2025, and direct transmission of the disputed Will and admitted signatures to a reliable forensic laboratory for comparative analysis.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may refuse a petition under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to refer disputed handwriting to a forensic expert solely on the ground that a prior expert opinion was inconclusive, and whether referral to a private laboratory like Truth Labs is permissible under law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri Panchagunula Rishyendra Sai contended that the inconclusive opinion from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory necessitated a second opinion, especially given the gravity of the allegation - forgery of a testamentary document. He emphasized that Section 45 of the Evidence Act permits courts to seek expert opinions on handwriting, and that the petitioners’ right to a fair defense under Article 21 of the Constitution requires a meaningful opportunity to challenge the Will’s authenticity. He argued that Truth Labs, being technologically advanced, could provide a conclusive result.
For the Respondent
Sri K. Muralidhar countered that the prior expert had already examined the documents and found them insufficient for a conclusive opinion. He argued that re-referral would amount to harassment and delay, and that private laboratories like Truth Labs lack statutory recognition and reliability. He cited judicial caution against relying on private forensic entities and urged the court to uphold the trial judge’s discretion to prevent abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the settled legal principle that expert opinion on handwriting is not conclusive proof and cannot be the sole basis for a finding. However, the Court emphasized that such opinions are admissible and often indispensable in cases involving disputed wills, where the stakes are high and documentary evidence is critical.
"Expert opinion is a weak type of evidence, but it is not irrelevant. When the authenticity of a testamentary document is challenged, and prior expert analysis is inconclusive, the court must permit a reasonable opportunity to explore further scientific avenues."
The Court noted that the Forensic Science Laboratory had explicitly stated that additional admitted signatures from the relevant time period were required - not that the documents were incapable of analysis. This indicated a need for more data, not futility.
The Court further rejected the petitioners’ request to send documents to Truth Labs, observing that private laboratories lack the statutory mandate, institutional accountability, and procedural safeguards of government forensic institutions. The Court cited its own coordinate Bench’s decision in CRP No.1102 of 2023, which had directed referral to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, in a nearly identical factual matrix.
The Court held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground of futility and delay, without considering the petitioners’ legitimate right to challenge the Will’s authenticity. However, the Court also declined to endorse private forensic entities, instead directing transmission to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad - a recognized, statutory body under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The order dated 01.07.2025 dismissing I.A. No.834 of 2025 was set aside. The disputed unregistered Will (Ex.A1) and the admitted signatures (Ex.B.13 and the 18.08.2008 Partition Deed) were directed to be transmitted to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad, for comparative analysis. The petitioners shall bear the cost of the forensic examination. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions in the trial court were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Expert Opinions Must Be Meaningfully Explored
- Practitioners must file applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act early and preserve all correspondence from forensic labs.
- If a government lab states that standards are insufficient, this is not a bar to re-application - it is a request for additional material.
- Courts cannot dismiss such applications on grounds of delay or futility without examining whether the deficiency is curable.
Private Forensic Labs Are Not Permissible for Court-Ordered Comparisons
- Applications seeking referral to private forensic entities like Truth Labs will be rejected.
- Only statutory forensic institutions (Central Forensic Science Laboratory, State Forensic Labs) are recognized for court-ordered handwriting comparisons.
- Counsel must specify the statutory lab in their applications to avoid procedural rejection.
Judicial Discretion Must Serve Substantive Justice
- The court’s duty under Article 227 is not to interfere in routine matters, but to ensure that parties are not deprived of a fair opportunity to defend.
- In testamentary disputes, where forgery is alleged, the burden of proof on the propounder is high, and the court must facilitate scientific verification.
- This judgment reinforces that procedural finality cannot override the right to a fair trial when critical evidence is at stake.
